Differences in Base of Articulation for Consonants …pagines.uab.cat/danielrecasens/sites/pagines.uab.cat...Base of Articulation for Catalan Consonants Phonetica 2010;67:201–218

Original Paper

Daniel RecasensDepartament de Filologia CatalanaUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterra 08193, Barcelona (Spain)Tel. +34 3 457 8183, Fax +34 3 581 2782 E- Mail [email protected]

Fax �41 61 306 12 34E- Mail [email protected]

© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel0031–8388/10/0674–0201$26.00/0Accessible online at:www.karger.com/pho

Phonetica 2010;67:201–218 Received: September 2, 2010DOI: 10.1159/000322312 Accepted: October 17, 2010

Differences in Base of Articulation for Consonants among Catalan Dialects

Daniel Recasens

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Institut d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona, Spain

AbstractElectropalatographic data for several front lingual consonants, i.e., the den-

tal /t/, the alveolars /n, l, s, r/ and the alveolopalatals /tʃ, ʃ, ʎ, ɲ/, show differences in constriction anteriority among Catalan dialects varying in the progression Valencian > Eastern, with the Majorcan dialect occupying an intermediate posi-tion. These differences do not conform to speaker- dependent differences in palate morphology and, to the extent that they operate on a varied range of conso-nants, may be attributed to base of articulation. Deviations from this pattern are associated with manner of articulation and symmetry demands. A specific dialect- dependent relationship between tongue dorsum contact and constriction fronting is interpreted assuming the existence of less laminal, more apical dental and alveolar stops, and less dorsal, more laminal alveolopalatals, in Valencian than in the other two dialects. These data are interpreted in terms of the articula-tory characteristics for different tongue front settings which have been proposed in the literature.

Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

1. Introduction

1.1. Articulatory PositioningWhile the terms ‘articulatory setting’ and ‘base of articulation’ enjoy a long tradi-

tion in the phonetics literature, very few studies have examined their scientific validity by means of experimental data. Several phoneticians suggest that differences in ‘accent’ among languages stem from the way speakers place their articulatory organs for pro-ducing vowels and consonants in continuous speech. Moreover, it may be argued that the articulatory setting of a particular language may remain relatively unmodified for long periods of time and, consequently, could shape language sound inventories and trigger specific sound changes and phonological processes.

Language- and dialect- dependent differences in base of articulation may be traced through differences in tongue and lip configuration for vowels [Disner, 1983], and in constriction location and in the primary lingual articulator for consonants. The present

http://dx.doi.org/10.1159%2F000322312

202 Phonetica 2010;67:201–218 Recasens

investigation deals with settings of the anterior region of the tongue according to which dialects and languages may favor front lingual consonants produced against the teeth and front alveolar zone with the tongue blade rather than with the tongue tip (e.g., French), or else at the more retracted central and back alveolar zones with the tip rather than with the blade (e.g., English) [Delattre, 1953; Honikman, 1964; Laver, 1980, p. 49]. In a carefully conducted palatographic study, Dart [1991, 1998, p. 32] has reported indeed that /t, d, n/ are mostly apicolamino- dental in French and apicoalveolar in English.

It has also been stated that differences in place of articulation and in primary articu-lator may co- occur with differences in placement and configuration of the tongue body, which has been reported to be advanced, raised and convex to the roof of the mouth in languages exhibiting a laminal setting (French), and posterior, lowered and concave in languages showing an apical setting (English) [Honikman, 1964]. These language- dependent differences in tongue body position and shape could explain differences in degree of darkness in /l/ (i.e., /l/ is ‘light’ in French and ‘dark’ in English), and possibly the presence of a large number of alveolopalatal consonants in French. Moreover, they have been argued to account for differences in vowel quality, i.e., ‘bright’ vowels in French as opposed to ‘dull’ and central vowels in English [Heffner, 1950, p. 99], and for specific vowel changes, i.e., /a/ fronting into /ε/ in French [mer MARE; Malmberg, 1974, p. 246].

According to early studies [Heffner, 1950, p. 99; O’Connor, 1973, p. 289], prefer-ence for the tongue blade over the tongue tip as the primary articulator could induce a higher degree of tongue pressure and tension during front lingual consonant produc-tion, e.g., in French versus English. Possible correlates of an increase in tension are expected to be the formation of a larger tongue contact area at constriction location, a higher intraoral and/or subglottal pressure and a slower constriction release [Laver, 1980, pp. 149– 156].

The jaw may also contribute to the tongue tip and blade settings. Experimental data reveal that the jaw occupies a lower position during consonant production in English than in French [Gick et al., 2004; Wilson, 2006], which matches a well- known trend for apical consonants to exhibit a lower jaw than laminal ones [see Lindblad and Lundqvist, 2003 for /l/, and Honikman, 1964, pp. 78– 79 for retroflex consonants in the languages of India and Pakistan]. Early descriptive studies have pointed out, however, that the jaw is kept slightly open by speakers of French and loosely closed by speakers of English [Honikman, 1964], and moves less in the latter language than in the former [O’Connor, 1973, p. 289].

1.2. Symmetry and Manner of ArticulationArticulatory symmetry, i.e., a trend for phonetic segments specified for a given

place or manner feature to exhibit the same or a highly similar articulatory implemen-tation of that feature, needs to be taken into consideration in studies dealing with artic-ulatory setting.

Symmetry appears to play a relevant role in the distribution of vowels in vowel spaces, mostly so regarding F1, since this formant is the main spectral correlate of vowel height and is more intense than other formants [Lindblom, 1986; Boersma, 1998, pp. 347– 350]. This characteristic holds for the number of vowels in vowel inventories, i.e., languages tend to have the same number of mid front and mid back vowels. It also applies to the vowel formant frequencies, i.e., both mid front and mid

203Phonetica 2010;67:201–218Base of Articulation for Catalan Consonants

back vowels show a very similar F1 frequency in five vowel systems and may share particularly open or close realizations (e.g., both /ε/ and /ɔ/ are particularly open in the Majorcan and Valencian dialects of Catalan [Recasens and Espinosa, 2006a, 2009]).

There is some evidence that consonants agreeing in place but not in manner of articulation may be produced with roughly the same constriction location provided that the manner requirements for at least one of the consonants subject to compari-son do not prevent this symmetrical relationship from occurring. Thus, in Majorcan Catalan, the nasal stop phoneme /ɲ/ and the oral stop allophone [c] of /k/ may share approximately the same closure location either at the alveolopalatal or at the palatal zone depending on speaker [Recasens and Espinosa, 2006b]. It has also been shown that the constriction placement for /ʃ/ may agree very closely with the constriction and, less so, the closure location for the affricate /tʃ/ [Dixit and Hoffman, 2004; Recasens and Espinosa, 2007b]. It appears, therefore, that consonants subject to a symmetrical relationship ought to be related in a similar way to a specific base of articulation char-acteristic. Thus, the place of articulation of the two consonants /c/ and /ɲ/, as well as that of /ʃ/ and /tʃ/, referred to above is expected to be more anterior or more posterior depending on the language or dialect taken into account.

Laterals, fricatives and trills may not conform to differences in articulatory set-ting in line with the strict manner of articulation demands involved in their production [Mennen et al., 2010]. Thus, while dentoalveolar stops are more anterior in French than in English, the opposite may hold for apical /l/, which is clear in the former language and dark in the latter (see also section 1.3), and /s/ has been reported to be mostly laminal (less apical) in the two languages [Dart, 1998]. In a similar fashion, the lateral phoneme /ʎ/ is articulated invariably at the alveolar or alveolo- prepalatal zone in the Romance languages and thus, at a more anterior location than the alveolopalatal or palatal cognates /ɲ/ and /c/, presumably since its production requires the formation of one or two channels at the sides of the oral cavity for the passage of airflow [Recasens and Espinosa, 2006b].

Once manner of articulation requirements and the possible effect of symmetry are taken into consideration, a given articulatory setting is expected to affect all or the majority of the phonetic segments produced at a specific articulatory zone, e.g., front lingual consonants, front vowels. This is so since the base of articulation charac-teristics are supposed to be present ‘more or less all the time that a person is talking’ [Abercrombie, 1967, p. 91].

1.3. The Catalan CaseLinguopalatal contact data obtained by means of electropalatography (EPG)

reveal differences in constriction anteriority for consonants among the three Catalan dialects Eastern (which is spoken in the Eastern part of Catalonia, a region located in the northeast of Spain), Majorcan (which is spoken in the island of Majorca) and Valencian (which is spoken in the Valencian provinces located south of Catalonia and bordering on Spanish territories to the west). A clear case is that of the lingual fricatives /s/ and /ʃ/, which have been found to be articulated with a more anterior constriction in Valencian than in the other two dialects; moreover, based on EPG data on constric-tion location, length and shape, it has been suggested that the lingual constriction is more laminal in Valencian and more apical in Majorcan and Eastern in the case of /s/, and laminal or lamino- predorsal in Majorcan and just laminal in Valencian in the case


of /ʃ/ [Recasens and Espinosa, 2007b]. EPG data for Eastern Catalan also show that other front lingual consonants are particularly retracted in this dialect [Recasens and Pallarès, 2001]. This appears to be the case for the alveolar /n/ and the alveolopalatals /ʎ/ and /ɲ/ during the production of which the tongue has been found to occupy a more backward position both at the alveolar and palatal zones in Eastern Catalan than in Italian [Recasens et al., 1993].

It may be that the Eastern dialect and, to a larger extent, the more isolated Majorcan dialect still maintain a trend to produce certain front consonants at about the postalveo-lar zone or even the prepalate, which has been reported to occur in other Mediterranean linguistic areas (see Millardet [1933] regarding the presence of especially posterior real-izations of /n, l/ and the trill /r/ in Sicilian, Corsican and Sardinian). On the other hand, the presence of more anterior articulations in Valencian than in Eastern and Majorcan could be in line with the geographical proximity between the Valencian Catalan and Spanish linguistic domains and thus reflect the influence of Peninsular Spanish (as for the anterior constriction location of consonants in Peninsular Spanish, see Fernández Planas [2000]).

The goal of the present study is to investigate in a systematic way differences in articulatory fronting and in tongue body position for nine front lingual consonants, i.e., the dental /t/, the alveolars /n, l, s, r/ and the alveolopalatals /tʃ, ʃ, ʎ, ɲ/, among the Eastern, Majorcan and Valencian dialects of Catalan using linguopalatal contact data. (See Recasens and Espinosa [2007b] for the assignment of the term ‘alveolopalatal’ instead of ‘palatoalveolar’ to /ʃ/ and /tʃ/ in Catalan.) As indicated above, EPG data for some of these consonants have been reported already in several earlier papers [Recasens and Pallarès, 2001; Recasens and Espinosa, 2005, 2006b, 2007a, b]. However, while those studies looked mostly at the articulatory characteristics of specific consonant cat-egories (fricatives and affricates, rhotics, laterals, palatals) in one or two dialects, the present investigation seeks to uncover dialect- dependent differences in base of articu-lation by comparing the place of articulation and the dorsopalatal contact characteris-tics of all nine consonants across all three dialects. No data will be presented for labials or velars since constriction location at the lips or behind the hard palate is not visible on the EPG record.

In line with experimental evidence summarized above, our initial hypothesis is that closure or constriction fronting should vary in the progression Valencian > Eastern, with Majorcan occupying an intermediate position. These dialectal differences in base of articulation ought to operate mostly on the apical, laminal or apicolaminal oral and nasal stops /t/ and /n/; regarding /t/, they should be observed at the back closure border but not at the front closure edge since this consonant is articulated invariably at the front teeth in Catalan and the other Romance languages. As argued next, the remaining consonants may exhibit an exceptional behavior due to manner and symmetry requirements.

Resistance to dialectal variations in tongue front setting may occur for the laterals /l, ʎ/, the fricatives /s, ʃ/ and the trill /r/ in line with manner of articulation demands (see section 1.2). Thus, a more anterior place of articulation for /l/ in Majorcan than in the other two Catalan dialects should be attributed to differences in darkness degree, i.e., the alveolar lateral is strongly dark in Majorcan, moderately dark in Eastern and essen-tially clear in Valencian [Recasens and Espinosa, 2005]. A very front closure location for strongly dark varieties of /l/ could facilitate the lowering of the tongue dorsum and the retraction of the tongue postdorsum, thus contributing to an enlargement of the mid cavity between the alveolar closure and the dorsopharyngeal constriction and, thus,


to F2 lowering and an increase in darkness degree (see Fant [1960, p. 167] and also Ladefoged and Maddieson [1996, p. 186] regarding this possibility for the apicoden-tal and apicoalveolar varieties of /l/ in Albanian). Also, in line with data reported in previous studies, differences in alveolar constriction fronting between Valencian and Majorcan could be less for /s/ than for /ʃ/ and fail to achieve significance for the alveo-lar trill /r/ perhaps in line with the high degree of articulatory precision and the com-plex aerodynamic mechanisms involved in the production of fricatives and trills [Solé, 1999; Recasens and Espinosa, 2007a, b].

The effect of articulatory symmetry on place anteriority may be involved in two cases. It could cause /tʃ/ to exhibit a similar closure and/or constriction location to that for /ʃ/, and thus, the two consonant realizations to share the same base of articulation characteristic. Analogously to the oral stop allophone [c], the nasal stop /ɲ/ may be articulated either at a continuous area encompassing the alveolar and palatal zones in all dialects, or else at the palatal zone and, therefore, at a posteriormost location in Majorcan (see section 1.2). If so, closure location for /ɲ/ could be more retracted in Majorcan than in Eastern and Valencian, where /ɲ/ is always alveolopalatal, which would not conform to the predicted differences in consonant place anteriority among the three Catalan dialects.

The dialectal characteristics of primary articulator and dorsopalatal contact will also be analyzed. If differences in closure or constriction location co- occur with differ-ences in primary articulator along the lines of previous proposals for French and English (see section 1.1), one would expect to find a trend for the more anterior dental and alveolar lingual consonants to be articulated essentially with the blade (in Valencian) and for the more posterior ones to be articulated with the tip (in Eastern). Moreover, differences in interarticulatory coupling between the primary lingual articulator and the tongue dorsum, i.e., the tongue dorsum is more tightly coupled with the tongue blade than with the tongue tip, should cause the more apical consonant realizations of the Eastern dialect to exhibit more tongue dorsum lowering and retraction (and, there-fore, less dorsopalatal contact on the EPG record) than the more laminal ones of the Valencian dialect. Likewise, alveolopalatal consonants ought to be produced with the blade in Valencian and essentially with the predorsum in Eastern, and should exhibit more tongue dorsum raising in the latter dialect than in the former. To summarize, based on predictions on interarticulatory coupling, there are reasons to believe that the expected differences in place anteriority for consonants among Catalan dialects ought to be correlated with differences in dorsopalatal contact size, either positively (in the case of dentoalveolars) or inversely (for alveolopalatals).

1.4. Palate ShapeBefore reaching a definite conclusion about dialect- dependent differences in artic-

ulatory setting among Catalan consonants, we should make sure that those differences are not speaker- dependent. For that purpose, the extent to which tongue contact pat-terns are influenced by palate shape must be evaluated.

Previous studies from the literature have been concerned with whether palate shape constrains linguopalatal contact variability and linguopalatal contact patterns [Mooshammer et al., 2004; Brunner et al., 2005, 2009]. Data on token- to- token vari-ability for lingual fricatives and several vowels produced by speakers of several lan-guages indicate that speakers with flat palates tend to exhibit less contact variability than several speakers with domed palates. No necessary relationship was found to hold


between palate shape and palate contact degree, i.e., it was not clearly the case that dorsopalatal contact decreases with palate doming such that the flatter the palate, the easier it is for the tongue dorsum to reach the central area of the palate surface. In an acoustic and articulatory study of Catalan vowels, we also found that dialect- and speaker- dependent differences in opening degree for front vowels are not clearly con-ditioned by palate height [Recasens and Espinosa, 2006a].

This paper will test the latter hypothesis with linguopalatal contact data elicited from Eastern Catalan, Majorcan and Valencian speakers who differ presumably in place anteriority for consonants. An inverse relationship between palatal contact size and palate doming should be most prone to apply to phonetic segments exhibiting a good deal of dorsopalatal contact, namely, alveolopalatal consonants. It should also operate on stops rather than on fricatives, laterals and rhotics given that consonants of the three latter manners of articulation are produced with some predorsum lowering.

In principle, the relationship between place anteriority and palate doming should be less straightforward. For flat palates, consonants are expected to exhibit a fairly front and relatively fixed constriction location since the tongue body can easily accom-modate to the palate surface in this case. Domed palates, on the other hand, ought to allow for more variability in closure or constriction fronting since now tongue body accommodation is harder to achieve. Moreover, the degree of variability could be greater for dentoalveolars than for alveolopalatals in view of differences in flexibility of the primary articulator and in dorsopalatal contact size between the two consonant classes; thus, one would expect domed palates to exhibit a fairly back closure or con-striction for alveolopalatal consonants and either a fairly front or a fairly back closure or constriction for dentoalveolars.

1.5. SummaryThe goal of this study is to quantify dialectal differences in base of articulation among Eastern

Catalan, Valencian and Majorcan by looking at the place of articulation and inferring the primary articulator for dental, alveolar and alveolopalatal consonants. Except for consonants specified for strict manner of articulation demands or for place constraints such as dental contact at the front closure border for /t/ and palatality for /ɲ/, place anteriority is expected to be greater for all or most consonants in Valencian than in the Eastern dialect, with Majorcan falling in between. Tongue body height and fronting could exhibit a comparable dialectal hierarchy. In order to make sure that dialect- dependent differences in articulatory setting are not determined by speaker- dependent differences in palate shape, the relationship between linguopalatal contact and palate curvature will also be analyzed.

2. Method

2.1. ArticulationEPG is a suitable technique for investigating dialect- dependent differences in articulatory front-

ing and palatal contact size [Mennen et al., 2010]. The linguopalatal contact data submitted to analysis in the present paper were recorded with the Reading EPG system by means of artificial palates with 62 electrodes distributed into eight rows and eight columns [Hardcastle et al., 1989], and have been reported for the most part in studies dealing with the articulatory characteristics of individual conso-nants and consonant types (see section 1.3). As shown in figure 1, rows proceed from the anteriormost row 1 to the posteriormost row 8, and columns from the centralmost column 4 to the lateralmost col-umn 1 at both halves of the artificial palate; the four front rows extend over the alveolar zone and the four back rows are located at the palatal zone.

The EPG data correspond to the consonants /t, n, l, s, r, tʃ, ʃ, ʎ, ɲ/ produced 5– 7 times by 5 speak-ers of Eastern Catalan (DR, JP, JS, DP, JC), Majorcan (AR, BM, MJ, ND, CA) and Valencian (JM,


VB, MS, VG, AV). Consonants were uttered by the Majorcan and Valencian speakers in [ˈaCə/a] or [ə/aˈCa] sequences embedded in four to six syllables long meaningful sentences, and by the Eastern Catalan speakers in isolated [ˈaCə] sequences. In spite of being produced in isolated sentences, the Eastern Catalan consonant realizations ought to be comparable to those for Majorcan and Valencian in view of the fact that their contact patterns turned out not to differ substantially from those occurring in consonant clusters embedded in meaningful sentences [Recasens and Pallarès, 2001]. Moreover, differences in stress placement are expected not to influence noticeably the linguopalatal contact char-acteristics of the target consonants since the consonants in question occur next to a stressed vowel in both prosodic structures [ˈaCə/a] and [ə/aˈCa]. The presence of [ə] or [a] in unstressed position is conditioned by the dialect- dependent vowel reduction rules of Catalan, i.e., unstressed /a/ is realized as [a] in Valencian and as [ə] in the other two dialects.

Linguopalatal contact data were gathered at the point of maximum contact over the entire surface of the artificial palate. Measurements could not be carried out in a few cases: for dark /l/ for speaker AR since this speaker often vocalizes the alveolar lateral; for /r/ for speaker CA, who articulates the trill as an uvular instead of as an alveolar; for /ʎ/ for speaker JM, who produces [j] instead of a lateral; for /tʃ/ in the case of the Valencian speakers JM and AV in line with phonological restrictions in the dialectal area where these 2 speakers came from, and of the Eastern speakers DP and JC since their preexisting recordings did not include the affricate.

Place of articulation was evaluated by computing the row number at which maximal electrode activation occurs at the front and back edges of a full closure (for stops and affricates), a central con-striction (for fricatives) or a central contact area (for laterals and the trill) across tokens. For all nine consonants under analysis, this methodological criterion should allow determining the place of articu-lation, as well as inferring the primary articulator involved in closure or constriction formation based on closure or constriction location and extent. It should be stated in this respect that gathering informa-tion on the primary lingual articulator from EPG data is necessarily speculative since this recording and analysis technique does not allow tracking tongue position and lingual movement.

Values for three contact indices were also computed using the formula reported in the publications referred to above: the alveolar contact anteriority index or CAa and the palatal contact average index or Qp for all consonants, and the alveolar contact posteriority index or CPa just for /t/ since dental closure should prevent dialect- dependent differences in contact fronting at the front closure edge from occur-ring. Whenever closure or constriction location extended into the fifth row, e.g., for alveolopalatals in all dialects, the subdivision of the artificial palate was not into four rows at each of the two articulatory zones (fig. 1) but into five rows at the alveolar zone and three rows at the palatal zone. This procedure ensured that data on closure or constriction location and on Qp (dorsopalatal contact size) were compa-rable across consonants, and had no effect or a negligible effect on CAa since this index is mostly sensi-tive to tongue contact variations occurring at the frontmost rows of electrodes of the alveolar zone.

Two- way ANOVAs were run on the mean front and back constriction edge, CAa and Qp values across tokens with ‘dialect’ and ‘consonant’ as factors. The factor ‘dialect’ had three levels (‘Eastern’,

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

R6

R7

R8

ALVEOLAR

PALATAL

Zones Rows ofelectrodes

C1 C2 C3 C4 C4 C3 C2 C1

Fig. 1. Subdivision of the arti-ficial palate into rows (R1– R8) and columns (C1– C4) of elec-trodes, and into articulatory zones (alveolar, palatal).


‘Majorcan’, ‘Valencian’) and the factor ‘consonant’ had nine levels (‘t’, ‘n’, ‘l’, ‘s’, ‘r’, ‘tʃ’, ‘ʃ’, ‘ʎ’, ‘ɲ’). Significant ‘dialect’ × ‘consonant’ interactions were interpreted based on inspection of the speak-ers’ mean values and on results obtained from one- way ANOVAs run on the data for each consonant with ‘dialect’ as independent variable. Dialect- dependent differences in CPa and back closure edge values for /t/ were also evaluated statistically by means of one- way ANOVAs. In all cases, Bonferroni post- hoc tests were performed on the significant main effects and the significance threshold was set at p < 0.05.

2.2. CurvatureThe coordinates of each of the 62 electrodes were determined for each speaker’s artificial pal-

ate by using three values corresponding to the dimensions z (vertical distance), x (coronal distance) and y (longitudinal distance). z was computed for each electrode by means of a caliper after placing the artificial palate on a flat surface. The location of each electrode over the x and y dimensions was measured on a photocopy of each artificial palate. x was calculated separately for the electrodes of each row R1 through R8 (fig. 1); it equals the distance between the leftmost electrode on a given row and each of the remaining electrodes on the same row. y equals the distance between the backmost electrode and each of the other electrodes on each of the columns C1 through C4 at both halves of the artificial palate.

Analogous to previous studies [Brunner et al., 2005, 2009], the curvature of the artificial pal-ates (α) was computed for the highest of all rows of electrodes, i.e., row 6 as a general rule. A linear approximation of the measured points for the eight electrodes of this row was calculated by applying the formula z = ax2 + bx + c, where z corresponds to height, x corresponds to width, and a, b and c are the equation coefficients. Then, α was calculated with the formula α = (4/3) / √|a| [Perrier et al., 1992]. As illustrated in figure 2 and table 1, a high α value corresponds to a flat palate and a low value to a dome- shaped palate.

Curvature values were correlated with the Qp and CAa index values both across all speakers and across speakers of each dialect. Separate correlation analyses were also run on data for each conso-nant, for all consonants, for all dentals and alveolars, and for all alveolopalatals.

3. Results

3.1. Place of ArticulationFigure 3a, b presents data on closure or constriction location and extent for all

consonants and speakers. The horizontal lines indicate that maximal contact occurs at a

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

5

10

15

20

25

Speaker AV

� = 4.932

z (v

ertic

al d

ista

nce

in m

m)

x (horizontal distance in mm)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

x (horizontal distance in mm)

Speaker VG

� = 6.752

Fig. 2. Palates showing low (left) and high (right) curvature values.


single row of electrodes. Place of articulation becomes more anterior as the vertical or horizontal lines approach row 1 at the top of the graphs.

The figures show that the degree of anteriority for most consonants varies with dialect in the expected progression Valencian (most anterior) > Majorcan (intermediate location) > Eastern (most posterior). Statistical tests run on the front and back constric-tion edge values yielded a significant effect of ‘dialect’ [F(2, 101) = 16.93, p = 0.000 for the front edge; F(2, 101) = 22.45, p = 0.000 for the back edge] and ‘consonant’ [F(8, 101) = 16.69, p = 0.000; F(8, 101) = 25.41, p = 0.000]. Differences in constric-tion fronting turned out to be significant for all three dialectal comparisons at both constriction edges, namely, Valencian > Eastern (p = 0.000, p = 0.000), Valencian > Majorcan (p = 0.005, p = 0.004) and Majorcan > Eastern (p = 0.029, p = 0.003). These statistical results are in support of dialect- dependent differences in base of articulation conforming to the progression Valencian > Majorcan > Eastern. On the other hand, consonant- dependent anteriority differences achieved significance for /t, n, l, ʎ/ > /s, r, ʃ, ɲ/ at the front constriction border and for /t, n, l, s, r, ʎ/ > /ʃ, ɲ/ at the back border, with /tʃ/ falling in between.

Figure 4 plots CAa values for all consonants. In the figure, contact fronting increases as the index value approaches 1 at the top of the graphs. A correlation analy-sis between the front constriction edge and CAa data across consonants and speakers yielded a high negative r value (– 0.806), which indicates that CAa captures variations in contact fronting at the place of articulation satisfactorily. In parallel to the statistical results for the constriction edge values referred to above, ANOVAs run on the CAa data yielded a significant effect of ‘dialect’ [F(2, 101) = 12.31, p = 0.000] and ‘conso-nant’ [F(8, 101) = 17.21, p = 0.000]. Pairwise comparisons achieved significance for the CAa differences between Eastern and the other two dialects (Valencian > Eastern, p = 0.000; Majorcan > Eastern, p = 0.005), and between the same consonant groups showing contact anteriority differences at the front constriction border (/t, n, l, ʎ/ > /s, r, ʃ, ɲ/).

Table 1. Curvature (α), height (z), width (x) and length (y) values for all 15 speakers (see section 2.2 for details)

Dialect Speaker α z, mm x, mm y, mm

Eastern DR 5.748 18 32 41JP 5.342 19 31 42.5JS 5.390 16.5 33.5 48DP 6.658 16 35 47JC 5.585 19 36 43

Majorcan AR 5.312 19 32.5 46.5BM 6.265 15 32 36.5MJ 5.706 17 31.5 43ND 6.086 17 35.5 43.5CA 6.506 16.5 35 36.5

Valencian JM 6.067 17 36 38.5VB 4.932 17 28 39.5MS 6.522 17.5 37.5 43VG 6.752 16.5 33.5 42.5AV 4.932 22 37 41.5


12345678

t

12345678

n rRow

of e

lect

rode

s

12345678

l

s

DR JP JS DP JC ARBM MJ ND CA JM VBMSVG AV

Easterna Majorcan Valencian


Easternb Majorcan ValencianDR JP JS DP JC ARBM MJ ND CA JM VBMSVG AV

Eastern Majorcan Valencian



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

tʃ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8ʎ �

Row

of

elec

trod

es

ʃ

Fig. 3. a Front and back closure and constriction edge values for dental and alveolar consonants as a function of speaker and dialect. Rows of electrodes are numbered 1 (most anterior) through 8 (most posterior). Both edges occur at the same location whenever a horizontal mark appears instead of a verti-cal line. b Front and back closure and constriction edge values for alveolopalatal consonants as a func-tion of speaker and dialect. Rows of electrodes are numbered 1 (most anterior) through 8 (most posterior). Both edges occur at the same location whenever a horizontal mark appears instead of a vertical line.


There was a significant ‘dialect’ × ‘consonant’ interaction for the front and back constriction edge values [F(16, 101) = 3.72, p = 0.000; F(16, 101) = 1.82, p = 0.037], though not for the CAa index values, thus meaning that not all consonants conformed to the basic dialectal pattern to the same extent. In agreement with our initial predictions and as shown in figures 3a, b and 4, differences in contact anteriority for Valencian > Eastern and, to some extent, for Majorcan > Eastern as well, were found to hold for the dental stop /t/ at the back closure edge and for the consonants /n, r, tʃ, ʃ, ʎ/. In particular, /t/ exhibited a main effect of ‘dialect’ at the back closure edge and for CPa [F(2, 12) = 9.9, p = 0.003; F(2, 12) = 5.52, p = 0.020], which turned out to be associated with a significantly more retracted closure location in Eastern than in Valencian in the case of both contact index values (p = 0.003, p = 0.020) and in Eastern than in Majorcan for the back closure edge data (p = 0.024). The expected dialect- dependent differences failed to apply to /t/ at the front closure edge where all speakers exhibited maximal front-ing. They did not operate either on the consonants /l, s, ɲ/, which are subject to other specific production constraints: the alveolar lateral /l/ happened to be most anterior in Majorcan where it is strongly dark; the alveolar fricative /s/ was nonsignificantly more anterior in Valencian than in Majorcan and Eastern; the nasal stop /ɲ/ was less anterior on average in Majorcan than in Valencian and Eastern since it could exhibit not only an alveolopalatal but also a purely palatal articulation in the former dialect.

The size of the lines in figure 3a, b reflects the extent of lingual contact at the place of articulation and, in conjunction with the degree of contact fronting, should provide some information about the primary lingual articulator involved in closure or constric-tion formation. In particular, for consonants /t, n, l/, exhibiting a complete or central

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

n l

s r

ʃ

tʃ

ʎ �

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

t

CA

a va

lue

CA

a va

lue

CA

a va

lue


DRJP

JS JCDP

ARBM

MJ CAND

JMVB

MS AVVG


DRJP

JS JCDP

ARBM

MJ CAND

JMVB

MS AVVG


DRJP

JS JCDP

ARBM

MJ CAND

JMVB

MS AVVG

Fig. 4. CAa index values for all consonants as a function of speaker and dialect.


closure, the size of the lines ought to increase as the primary articulator shifts from the tongue tip to the tongue blade; thus, the presence of longer lines for the dental /t/ than for the alveolars /n, l/ may be indicative that the former consonant is essentially apico-laminal or laminal while the two latter ones may be apical or slightly apicolaminal (see also Dart [1991, pp. 15– 17] regarding the same relationship between constriction loca-tion and length and primary articulator). Contrary to the initial hypothesis (see section 1.3 and fig. 3a), it does not seem to be the case that /t, n, l/ are more laminal in Valencian and more apical in Eastern or Majorcan; instead, the more anterior articulations of /t/ (in Valencian) and of /l/ (in Majorcan and in Valencian as well) exhibit often shorter, not longer lines than the more posterior ones (in Eastern), which suggests that there is a more active participation of the tongue tip for the production of the former and of the tongue blade for the production of the latter. As for /s/ and /r/, it becomes problematic to draw information about the primary articulator due to the restricted length of the lin-gual constriction for both consonants; in any case, while the trill /r/ is prone to be apical in all dialects, the more anterior realizations of /s/ in Valencian could be more laminal than the more posterior productions in Eastern and Majorcan (see ‘Introduction’).

Alveolopalatals are generally articulated with the tongue tip down and the active participation of the blade and/or predorsum depending on degree of closure or constric-tion fronting. According to figure 3b, /tʃ, ʃ, ʎ, ɲ/ exhibit differences in closure or con-striction length as a general rule: the fricative /ʃ/ appears to be articulated with a precise laminal or front predorsal constriction or else with a longer predorsal constriction; on the other hand, /tʃ, ʎ/ are produced with a less extensive closure than /ɲ/ perhaps due to requirements to free some linguopalatal contact for the passage of airflow for fricatives and laterals but not for stops. As for the dialectal characteristics, the data presented in figure 3b suggest that the more anterior realizations of Valencian should be basically laminal while the more posterior ones of Eastern ought to be essentially predorsal. As pointed out in section 1.3, the production of /ɲ/ in Majorcan may involve the tongue mediodorsum whether in addition to more anterior tongue regions when the consonant is alveolopalatal for speakers MJ and CA or by itself when it is purely palatal for speak-ers BM and ND.

3.2. Palatal ContactFigure 5 displays Qp values for all consonants. In the graphs, dorsopalatal con-

tact size increases as the index value approaches 1. Two- way ANOVAs on the Qp data yielded a main effect of ‘dialect’ [F(2, 101) = 5.33, p = 0.006] and ‘consonant’ [F(8, 101) = 84.91, p = 0.000], and a barely significant ‘dialect’ × ‘consonant’ interac-tion [F(16, 101) = 1.75, p = 0.049]. The effect of ‘dialect’ turned out to be associated with a larger dorsopalatal contact area for Majorcan than for Valencian (p = 0.000). Consonant- dependent differences across dialects were related to alveolopalatals being articulated with more dorsopalatal contact than dentals and alveolars (maximal contact corresponds to /ɲ/ and minimal contact to /l/).

The significant ‘dialect’ × ‘consonant’ interaction appears to be associated with larger dialect- dependent differences for some consonants than for others, i.e., for alve-olopalatals than for dentals and alveolars. Thus, as shown in figure 5 and confirmed by the statistical results, /tʃ/ exhibits a higher Qp value in Majorcan and Eastern than in Valencian, and /ɲ/ shows the highest Qp of all dialects in Majorcan.

The relationship between dorsopalatal contact and constriction fronting referred to above may be accounted for assuming that, as argued for in section 3.1, more posterior


productions for some consonants in Majorcan and Eastern than in Valencian should be articulated with more posterior tongue regions, i.e., with more participation of the tongue blade for the dental /t/ and the alveolar /n/, and of the tongue dorsum for the alveolopalatals /tʃ, ʃ, ʎ, ɲ/. These differences in primary articulator would account for a trend for the consonants of interest to be articulated with more dorsopalatal contact in Majorcan and Eastern than in Valencian. Dialect- dependent differences in constric-tion placement for the other consonants, i.e., mostly for /l/ and, less so, for /s, r/, do not result in appreciable Qp differences. As for /l/, this appears to be the case since the EPG technique does not track successfully variations in dorsopalatal contact for consonant articulations involving considerable tongue dorsum lowering.

3.3. Correlating Tongue Contact with Palate CurvatureAs shown in figure 6 and table 1, curvature values were found to range between

4.93 and 6.75. The table also reports z, x and y values for all speakers. Palates appear to be most domed for speakers JP, JS, JC, AR, VB and AV (their curvature coefficient is 5.5 or lower) and flattest for speakers DP, CA, MS and VG (their α value is 6.5 or higher). Speakers DR, BM, MJ, ND and JM show intermediate curvature values.

As argued for in the ‘Introduction’, in order for tongue contact to be associated with palate shape, correlation values between dorsopalatal contact and palate curvature ought to be positive, i.e., flatter palates ought to show more contact than more domed ones. On the other hand, the relationship between closure or constriction fronting and palate curvature is expected to be also positive, i.e., there should be more fronting for


DRJP

JS JCDP

ARBM

MJ CAND

JMVB

MS AVVG


DRJP

JS JCDP

ARBM

MJ CAND

JMVB

MS AVVG


DRJP

JS JCDP

ARBM

MJ CAND

JMVB

MS AVVG

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

n

l

s r

ʃ

tʃ

ʎ �

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

t

Qp

valu

eQ

p va

lue

Qp

valu

e

Fig. 5. Qp index values for all consonants as a function of speaker and dialect.


flatter versus domed palates, and it should hold to a larger extent for the less variable alveolopalatal articulations than for the more variable dental and alveolar ones.

The Qp and curvature values turned out not to be positively correlated either for all consonants, for dentals and alveolars, or for alveolopalatals, whether considered across all speakers or across speakers of each dialect (r values were below 0.2 in all cases, except for Majorcan where they could reach 0.4). A relationship between the two parameters, with domed palates exhibiting less contact and flat palates showing more contact, may hold for specific consonants and speakers. Indeed, a comparison between figures 5 and 6 shows that differences in Qp among the 5 Majorcan speakers are similar in many respects to speaker- dependent differences in degree of curvature, and indeed correlation values about or above 0.6 were obtained for /t, n, tʃ, ʎ, ɲ/ in this dialect. In most cases, however, there is no apparent relationship. Thus, among Eastern Catalan speakers, DP has the flattest palate and JP and JS the most domed palates (fig. 6), but the alveolopalatal consonants /ʎ, ɲ/ exhibit a lower Qp value for the former speaker than for the 2 latter ones (fig. 5). Positive correlations between the two parameters of interest were obtained only for /r, tʃ, ʃ/ in Eastern, and for none of the nine consonants in Valencian.

CAa turned out not to be associated with degree of curvature (r did not exceed 0.2) according to results obtained from correlation analyses run on data for all conso-nants, for dentals and alveolars, and for alveolopalatals, both across all speakers and across speakers of each dialect. Correlation analyses performed on each consonant yielded positive r values about 0.6 or higher for /t, n, ʎ, tʃ/ in Majorcan and for /t, r, tʃ/ in Eastern, and negative values above – 0.6 for /ɲ, tʃ/ in Valencian. The lack of a straightforward relationship between contact fronting and palate curvature becomes obvious through a comparison between the data presented in figures 4 and 6. Thus, for example, in disagreement with our initial expectations, the Eastern Catalan speakers JS and JC have relatively domed palates but only the former speaker exhibits fairly pos-terior alveolopalatal articulations; moreover, speaker DP’s flattest palate is not associ-ated with the most anterior alveolopalatal consonant productions of all Eastern Catalan speakers. Correlation analyses between the CPa values for /t/ and degree of curvature failed to reach the 0.6 threshold for any of the three dialects subject to investigation.

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

�

DR JP JS DP JC AR BM MJ ND CA JM VB MS VG AV


Fig. 6. Curvature values (α) as a function of speaker and dialect.


4. Discussion and Conclusions

Linguopalatal contact data for most consonants, i.e., /t, n, r, tʃ, ʃ, ʎ/, reported in the present study indicate the existence of differences in closure or constriction anterior-ity varying in the progression Valencian > Eastern, with the Majorcan dialect falling in between. Deviations from this pattern were found to hold for dental /t/ at the front closure border and for strongly dark /l/ and for /ɲ/, and may be attributed to specific place and manner constraints and to a symmetry requirement for /ɲ/ to exhibit the same closure location as [c]. While conforming to the expected trend, dialectal differences in tongue constriction fronting for /s/ and /r/ were found to be rather small, which is in line with the precise demands involved in the production of lingual fricatives and trills. Symmetry appears to account for similar dialect- dependent characteristics in constric-tion location for /ʃ/ and in closure and constriction placement for the affricate /tʃ/.

Dorsopalatal contact data for dental and alveolar consonants reported in the pres-ent investigation run against the initial hypothesis which has been advocated for other languages that, in comparison to more anterior and more laminal consonant articula-tions, more posterior and apical ones should exhibit a lower and more retracted tongue body. Instead, the consonantal realizations for the Valencian speakers did not differ much from those for the Eastern speakers and could have less, not more, dorsopalatal contact than those for the Majorcan speakers. These data can be accounted for assum-ing that consonants requiring a relatively high tongue dorsum position, i.e., /t, n, tʃ, ʃ, ʎ, ɲ/, are produced with a more anterior primary articulator in Valencian (more apical /t, n/, more laminal alveolopalatals) than in Eastern and Majorcan (more laminal /t, n/, more dorsal alveolopalatals).

Consonants involving more tongue dorsum lowering and showing little or no tongue dorsum contact at the palatal zone, i.e., /l, s, r/, may show dialectal differences in constriction fronting but fail to exhibit appreciable differences in Qp. It appears that tongue body height for these consonants cannot be easily inferred from the EPG tongue contact patterns and should, therefore, be ascertained with other recording techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging and electromidsagittal articulometry. In parallel with the scenario for /t, n, tʃ, ʃ, ʎ, ɲ/ sketched above, there are reasons to suggest that the more anterior realization of /l/ in Majorcan is more apical than the more posterior realization of the consonant in Eastern and Valencian, i.e., the fact that Majorcan /l/ is strongly dark and, therefore, produced with a considerably low and retracted tongue dorsum position. The trill /r/ is probably apical in all dialects. Finally, the alveolar fricative /s/ could be more laminal in Valencian (where it is more anterior) than in the other two dialects and, therefore, would be the only alveolar consonant conforming to the hypothesis that alveolars should be more laminal if more anterior (in languages and dialects exhibiting a tongue blade setting) than if more posterior (in languages and dialects with a tongue tip setting).

The lack of a significant relationship between palate curvature, on the one hand, and Qp, CAa and closure or constriction location, on the other hand, allows us to con-clude that dialect- dependent differences in articulatory setting prevail over speaker- dependent differences. Judging from the limited amount of data analyzed in the present investigation, it appears that Catalan speakers learn how to produce dialect- specific articulatory patterns regardless of their palate morphology.

Linguopalatal contact data for Catalan reported in this article provide support for Honikman’s [1964] and Laver’s [1980] distinction between tongue front settings


(see section 1.1) provided that dialectal differences in base of articulation are formu-lated in terms of constriction fronting rather than of the primary lingual articulator. Dialect- dependent differences in consonant place of articulation for Catalan could parallel those between English and French reported in the literature. Thus, it may be argued that Eastern Catalan resembles English in favoring retracted front lingual consonants, while Valencian resembles French in giving priority to more anterior consonant articulations. Similar differences in degree of anteriority may also occur between Eastern Catalan, on the one hand, and Spanish dialects or Italian, on the other hand (see section 1.3).

As for the lingual articulator involved in closure or constriction formation, it seems that dentals as well as more anterior and more posterior alveolars may be either more apical or more laminal depending on the language or dialect taken into account. The Catalan data suggest that, in agreement with Honikman’s [1964] and Laver’s [1980] proposal, /s/ may certainly be more laminal if more anterior. However, this prediction does not seem to hold necessarily for /t, n/ and fails to account for the data for /l/. As for alveolopalatals, more anterior productions turned out to be realized with more anterior regions of the tongue. On the other hand, tongue body position appears to be determined by the primary front lingual articulator, such that the tongue dorsum is prone to show a lower position for more apical versus more laminal dentals and alveolars and for more laminal versus more dorsal alveolopalatals. Moreover, this relationship holds to a large extent independently of closure or constriction front-ing; thus, the tongue dorsum is expected to occupy a lower position both for the more apical and posterior alveolars of English versus French (see section 1.1) and for the more apical and anterior alveolars of Valencian versus Majorcan (and perhaps Eastern).

Future work should deal with the extent to which the base of articulation dis-tinction reported in the present article, i.e., more anterior versus more retracted con-sonant articulations, holds for other languages and language families. Extensive data on the complex interaction between constriction fronting, primary lingual articulator and tongue dorsum raising degree as a function of consonant type, speaker and dialect are also needed. The relationship between articulatory setting and consonant quality needs to be ascertained as well. Thus, differences in base of articulation among Catalan dialects could account for why Eastern and Majorcan exhibit a dark variety of /l/ and a [ʃ]- like realization of /s/ while Valencian shows a light variety of /l/ and a front, [s]- like realization of /ʃ/. Another research topic is whether particular articulatory con-figurations may co- occur with specific prosodic patterns. It has been pointed out in this respect that a higher degree of articulatory tension could be at the origin of greater stability of unstressed vowels and of more evenness in the duration of consecutive syllables in syllable- timed languages like French than in stress- timed languages like English [Delattre, 1953]. Also in Catalan, there could be more articulatory tension and greater unaccented vowel stability in Valencian than in Eastern Catalan and Majorcan in line with fact that the two latter dialects exhibit an unstressed vowel reduction rule into schwa while the former dialect does not. Moreover, lingual movements could be more rapid and less vocalic in segmental sequences with consonants articulated with a raised and forward tongue body position than in those with consonants involving a low and back tongue body configuration [Heffner, 1950]. The validity of these articulatory mechanisms and their impact on the relative timing of phonetic segments in spoken utterances deserve further investigation.


Acknowledgments

This research was funded by projects FFI2009– 09339 of the Ministry of Innovation and Science of Spain and FEDER, and 2009SGR3 of the Catalan Government. I would like to thank Aina Espinosa and Christian Geng for help with the palate curvature evaluation procedure, and Maria Josep Solé and two anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous version of the manuscript.

References

Abercrombie, D.: Elements of general phonetics (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 1967).Boersma, P.: Functional phonology (Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague 1998). Brunner, J.; Fuchs, S.; Perrier, P.: The influence of the palate shape on articulatory token- to- token variability. ZAS

Papers in Ling., Zentrum für Allg. Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin 42:43– 67 (2005). Brunner, J.; Fuchs, S.; Perrier, P.: On the relationship between palate shape and articulatory behavior. J. acoust. Soc.

Am. 125:39363949 (2009). Dart, S.: Articulatory and acoustic properties of apical and laminal articulations. UCLA Working Papers Phonet. 79

(1991). Dart, S.: Comparing French and English coronal consonant articulation. J. Phonet. 26:71– 94 (1998). Delattre, P.: Les modes phonétiques du français. French Rev. 27:59– 63 (1953). Disner, S.F.: Vowel quality: the relation between universal and language- specific factors. UCLA Working Papers

Phonet. 58 (1983). Dixit, R.P.; Hoffman, P.R.: Articulatory characteristics of fricatives and affricates in Hindi: an electropalatographic

study. J. Int. Phonet. Ass. 34:141– 160 (2004). Fant, G.: Acoustic theory of speech production (Mouton, The Hague 1960). Fernández Planas, A.: Estudio electropalatográfico de la coarticulación vocálica en estructuras VCV en castellano;

PhD diss. Universitat de Barcelona (2000). Gick, B.; Wilson, I.; Koch, K.; Cook, C.: Language- specific articulatory settings: evidence from inter- utterance rest position. Phonetica 61:220– 233 (2004). Hardcastle, W.J.; Jones, W.; Knight, C.; Trudgeon, A.; Calder, G.: New developments in electropalatography: a

state- of- the- art report. Clin. Linguist. Phonet. 3:1– 38 (1989). Heffner, R.- M.S.: General phonetics (The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison 1950). Honikman, B.: Articulatory settings; in Abercrombie, Fry, MacCarthy, Scott, Trim, In honour of Daniel Jones, pp.

73– 84 (Longman, London 1964). Ladefoged, P.; Maddieson, I.: The sounds of the world’s languages (Blackwell, Oxford 1996). Laver, J.: The phonetic description of voice quality (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1980). Lindblad, P.; Lindqvist, S.: [l] tends to be velarised, apical as opposed to laminal, and produced with a low jaw, and

these features are connected; in Solé, Recasens, Romero, Proc. 15th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., pp. 1899– 1902 (Barcelona, 2003).

Lindblom, B.J.: Phonetic universals in vowel systems; in Ohala, Jaeger, Experimental phonology, pp. 13– 44 (Academic Press, London 1986).

Malmberg, B.: Manuel de phonétique générale (Picard, Paris 1974). Mennen, I.; Scobbie, J.M.; de Leeuw, E.; Schaeffler, S.; Schaeffler, F.: Measuring language- specific phonetic set-

tings. Second Lang. Res. 26:13– 41 (2010). Millardet, G.: Sur un ancien substrat commun à la Sicile, la Corse et la Sardaigne. Rev. Ling. Romane 9:346– 369

(1933). Mooshammer, C.; Perrier, P.; Geng, C.; Pape, D.: An EMA and EPG study on token- to- token variability. Arbeitsber.

Inst. Phonetik dig. Sprachverarb., Univ. Kiel 36:47– 63 (2004). O’Connor, J.D.: Phonetics (Penguin, Harmondsworth 1973). Perrier, P.; Boë, L.J.; Sock, R.: Vocal tract area function estimation from midsagittal dimensions with CT scans and

a vocal tract cast: modelling the transition with two sets of coefficients. J. Speech Hear. Res. 35:53– 67 (1992).

Recasens, D.; Espinosa, A.: Articulatory, positional and coarticulatory characteristics for clear /l/ and dark /l/: Evidence from two Catalan dialects. J. Int. Phonet. Ass. 35:1– 25 (2005).

Recasens, D.; Espinosa, A.: Dispersion and variability of Catalan vowels. Speech Commun. 48:645– 666 (2006a). Recasens, D.; Espinosa, A.: Articulatory, positional and contextual characteristics of palatal consonants: evidence

from Majorcan Catalan. J. Phonet. 34:295– 318 (2006b). Recasens, D.; Espinosa, A.: Phonetic typology and positional allophones for alveolar rhotics in Catalan. Phonetica

64:1– 28 (2007a). Recasens, D.; Espinosa, A.: An electropalatographic and acoustic study of affricates and fricatives in two Catalan

dialects. J. Int. Phonet. Ass. 37:143– 172 (2007b). Recasens, D.; Espinosa, A.: Dispersion and variability in Catalan five and six peripheral vowel systems. Speech

Commun. 51:240– 258 (2009).


Recasens, D.; Farnetani, E.; Fontdevila, J.; Pallarès, M.D.: An electropalatographic study of alveolar and palatal consonants in Catalan and Italian. Lang. Speech 36:213– 234 (1993).

Recasens, D., Pallarès, M.D.: De la fonètica a la fonologia. Les consonants i assimilacions consonàntiques del català (Ariel, Barcelona 2001).

Solé, M.J.: Production requirements of apical trills and assimilatory behavior; in Ohala, Hasegawa, Ohala, Granville, Bailey, Proc. 14th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., San Francisco 1999, pp. 487– 490.

Wilson, I.: Articulatory settings of French and English monolingual and bilingual speakers; PhD diss. University of British Columbia (2006).

Documents

Differences in Base of Articulation for Consonants …pagines.uab.cat/danielrecasens/sites/pagines.uab.cat...Base of Articulation for Catalan Consonants Phonetica 2010;67:201–218